For so long, we have been led to believe that there are black holes. Numerous theories and explanations have been proposed to support this view. However, Stephen Hawking has just come up with a new theory and explanation that demonstrate that there are no black holes. What do you think? Is he right? Or are the others right? Who is wrong? Does this affect public perception of science?
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583
First of all, what Hawking said in the article is the following:
"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to in finity. "
But, of course, most of the media decided to remove the part after "black holes". Therefore, to say that Hawking said the "there are no black holes" is quite misleading (most probably he also wrote it like this on purpose to provoke discussion). However, as I understand it, the point is not that "there aren't black holes" (in the sense that there is no such physical bodies collapse by gravitation) but that what we called black holes maybe are no so black.
So still, the result of the collapse of a massive star is a SN and, most probably, a black hole, and the centers of many galaxies host supermassive black holes. Maybe they are not so black but for most astrophysical and practical purposes nothing has changed.
Cheers!
This concept of the black-hole comes at a time of new research. For instance I am showing that time correction demonstrates that slow velocity is associated with more momentum and energy too over time. As time or probability becomes more extreme, chances become less.I am also showing from my research, that the limit of energy correction as mass approaches infinity will be 0. This phenomenon is about singularity and follows.It is timely point on dark matter.
http://www.journalajst.com/sites/default/files/Download%201465.pdf
First of all, what Hawking said in the article is the following:
"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to in finity. "
But, of course, most of the media decided to remove the part after "black holes". Therefore, to say that Hawking said the "there are no black holes" is quite misleading (most probably he also wrote it like this on purpose to provoke discussion). However, as I understand it, the point is not that "there aren't black holes" (in the sense that there is no such physical bodies collapse by gravitation) but that what we called black holes maybe are no so black.
So still, the result of the collapse of a massive star is a SN and, most probably, a black hole, and the centers of many galaxies host supermassive black holes. Maybe they are not so black but for most astrophysical and practical purposes nothing has changed.
Cheers!
I fully agree with you, Jesus. Besides the absence of event horizons there is also the absence of any type of "firewall". This was suggested to explain the information paradox in black holes and changed the view: an incoming astronaut would burn in suche a firewall. May be the only horizon that remains is the apparent one. I am waiting to see if S. Hawking paper, already in the arXiv, gets the approval of the referees, and if there is any change in the final presentation in an appropiate journal.
I also agree that the press may have distorted the story, but as of date Stephen Hawking has not reacted negatively to what has been written in the papers and magazines. Is he simply not aware of any of the news?
May be S.Hawking has some doubts on the real existence of black holes as they have been defined: "not even light can escape from them".....They have been theoretically predicted, first by Michelle, later by Laplace (in his first book, in the second he forgot about it) and so on. The evaporation of black holes, by the emission of blackbody radiation, a prediction due to S. Hawking, has not yet been observed. Only indirect evidence exist. I always thought that gravity escapes from black holes: the prove is that the center of our galaxy, assumed to be a giant black hole, is atracting all the stars around it. And the question of an apparent horizon that in some sense exists but may be is not there.....with no posibility to check it (no predictions) makes the whole subject a very interesting theoretical exercise.......
I was able to calculate that energy of time correction is about 150000 times less with time correction (see paper attached on page 12) comapred to special relativity for neutrinos (Einstein's). When combined with inverse relationship of time correction,velocity, and energy and gravitational singularity may show new properties of black holes.
http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies/distant-black-hole-spins-half-the-speed-of-light-140305.htm
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry